- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Simon lives in Devon and one day he sees an Aston Martin parked
on the beach. No one is in sight but the tide is coming in rapidly.
Simon calls his neighbour and arranges for him to come and tow
the Aston Martin up the beach to safety. The neighbour is happy
to oblige but wants payment for what he has done. When the
owner, Mike, returns, he refuses to pay because he says the
action was not necessary.
Which of the following best describes the legal position?
A An agency of necessity has arisen because Simon is unable to
contact Mike.
B An agency of necessity has arisen because there is an
emergency situation and a pressing need for action.
C No agency of necessity has arisen because the Aston Martin is
not a perishable good and Simon’s action was not reasonable.
D No agency of necessity has arisen because there is no existing
pre-contractual relationship between Simon and MikeANS
DGood day sir,I don’t understand why this is not an agency of necessity since the car would have been washes away if simon didn’t call the neighbour to help drive it.I’ll appreciate if you can explain better.
So what has the loss of the car got to do with Simon? If the car is damaged, washed away, sunk in the sand or just washed in sea water, what has any of that got to do with Simon?
Nothing
Clearly it’s not a matter of life and death and there is no pre-incident relationship between Simon and Mike
It looks like Simon is going to have to compensate his friend from Simon’s own resources
OK?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.